The term ‘neoliberal’ was adopted deliberately to distance liberalism from pure laissez-faire

Evidence

Neoliberalism was not a unified phenomenon. Even the name of the doctrine was a problem: Louis Baudin preferred “individualism,” Louis Rougier “positive liberalism,” while Jacques Rueff favored “left-wing liberalism.” The term neoliberalism became prevalent only after the Colloque for strategic reasons: “the words ‘neo’ and ‘renovation,’ declared Louis Marlio, … “distinguish us from several authors of whom we did not accept all the practical theories and all objections [against] interventions which are accepted by most of us like perfectly normal things. For those who know it, … the word ‘neo’ is perhaps not essential, but for those who do not know it, it is totally useful.” To be “neoliberal” was supposed to imply the recognition that “laissez-faire” economics was not enough and that, in the name of liberalism, a modern economic policy was needed. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 279

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precise etymology of ‘neoliberalism’: the ‘neo’ was a strategic marker distinguishing 1930s renovators from older laissez-faire liberals while honoring the core.
• XREF: Connects to the contested-meaning debates that recur throughout foundational neoliberalism historiography; also resonates with the earlier note on how ‘neoliberal’ implies interventionist state policy in liberalism’s name. — connects to: Interwar liberal revivalists saw laissez-faire itself as a dogmatic mystique — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 177; Early neoliberals explicitly distanced themselves from classical laissez-faire doctrine — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 117; Neoliberals rejected both laissez-faire and universal welfare, seeking market-compatible assistance instead. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 199 (+12 more)
• SEED: Essay angle: the strategic naming of a doctrine — how ‘neo’/‘renovation’ operated as a brand to signal continuity-and-rupture simultaneously.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 279

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals coined the term themselves but abandoned it to claim continuity with classical liberalism. #complicates (0.90) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2110
• Neoliberalism differs from laissez-faire liberalism by using state intervention to create competition #expands (0.90)
• Neoliberalism’s core break with classical liberalism is its constructivist view of the state #expands (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 776
• Neoliberalism broke sharply with prewar classical liberalism rather than continuing it #contradicts (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 778
• The Colloque first defined neoliberalism as framework-building rather than laissez-faire #qualifies (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 281
• Neoliberal institutions aimed to build a new creed, not revive old liberalism #corroborates (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 773